Monday, July 4, 2011

Sober: Religion Isn’t Science, Except When it Is

In his book Evidence and Evolution Elliott Sober chastised those silly creationists for deducing that god created the species. “If this simple formula were enough to explain the observations in question,” the evolutionary philosopher warned, “there would be no need for science. Not only would Darwin’s own theory be unnecessary; there would be no need for theories in any other area of science, either.” Darwin’s theory unnecessary? Unthinkable. The “god did it” hypothesis is strictly unscientific. In fact Sober applauds Darwin’s refutation of creationism in proving evolution. In a PNAS paper Sober writes:

One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory, both when the Origin was published and in the minds of many present-day Creationists, is the idea that species (or “fundamental kinds” of organism) are separated from each other by walls. No one doubted, then or now, that natural selection can cause small changes within existing species. The question was whether the process Darwin described can bring about large changes. Maybe a species can be pushed only so far. …

If we focus just on natural selection, it is hard to see why Darwin had the more compelling case. However, if we set natural selection aside and consider instead the idea of common ancestry, the picture changes. Darwin thought he had strong evidence for common ancestry. This is enough to show that insuperable species boundaries (and insuperable boundaries between “kinds”) are a myth; if different species have a common ancestor, the lineages involved faced no such walls in their evolution. And the case for common ancestry does not depend on natural selection at all. ...

Two of the facts mentioned earlier—that humans and monkeys have tailbones, and that human fetuses and fish have gill slits—are evidence for common ancestry precisely because tailbones and gill slits are useless in humans.

I know, tailbones are not useless and human embryos don’t have gill slits. Right now we’re ignoring evolution’s abuse of science and focusing on the theological argument. One fallacy at a time, please.

Now back to the argument. So why are (supposedly) useless or deleterious structures such strong evidence for common ancestry? Would not evolution have done away with such disasters? No, it was busy doing other things.

Nature’s malignant mechanisms prove common ancestry by virtue of refuting separate ancestry. If separate ancestry is false, then what’s left? Exactly, common ancestry is proved by the process of elimination.

And why is it, again, that these mistakes refute separate ancestry? Why that’s simple. As Sober explains, under separate ancestry it would mean that the mistake was made twice (or even multiple times), whereas under common ancestry it was only made once, a much more reasonable and probable conclusion.

Take that creationists. No creator would make a mistake twice. Like the Addam’s Family, nature’s monsters must all be related. There must be no fundamental kinds. The “god did it” hypothesis is not only unscientific, it is obviously wrong. We know because god didn’t do it. That’s just the Stuff of Good Solid Scientific Research.

189 comments:

Nature’s malignant mechanisms prove common ancestry by virtue of refuting separate ancestry. If separate ancestry is false, then what’s left? Exactly, common ancestry is proved by the process of elimination.

Poor Cornelius - so caught up in his hellfire and brimstone spittle flying rant against evolution that he forgets science doesn't prove anything. Science offers the best, most parsimonious explanation for the observed data.

I'd be happy to listen to an alternate explanation for the existence of common vestigial features across different species besides common descent. Maybe you can take the time and give a better explanation for atavistic features too, things like aquatic mammals like dolphins and whales occasionally born with legs.

Well CH? You're fond of preaching that science has the wrong answer but you never tell us the right answer. Why is that?

In his book Evidence and Evolution Elliott Sober chastised those silly creationists for deducing that god created the species.

That was silly. Creationists didn't deduce anything. They picked up a two-thousand-year old anthology of Bronze Age myths and took it as gospel - so to speak - and they've been trying to make sense of it it ever since.

Take that creationists. No creator would make a mistake twice.

Point of order: a perfect creator would not make a mistake once. It couldn't. If there are mistakes, your creator isn't perfect and isn't God.

Now, of course, if you're talking space aliens then you're in good company - Dawkins and Dembski (unlikely bedfellows, I know) for two. The only problem with space aliens that I can see is that they could dispute our claim to be The Pinnacle of Creation.

Just for clarification, can a philosopher do science, even if the subject is science? Philosophical arguments, even in science, are not repeatable. So Sober can't do science himself. So he can't really say what is, or is not science.

"Nature’s malignant mechanisms prove common ancestry by virtue of refuting separate ancestry. If separate ancestry is false, then what’s left? Exactly, common ancestry is proved by the process of elimination."

As Thornton says, Science doesn't deal in PROOF. It deals in evidence.

"And why is it, again, that these mistakes refute separate ancestry? Why that’s simple. As Sober explains, under separate ancestry it would mean that the mistake was made twice (or even multiple times), whereas under common ancestry it was only made once, a much more reasonable and probable conclusion.

Take that creationists. No creator would make a mistake twice."

No. Common Descent is not being tested against the Creator hypothesis - it is being tested against random chance! Two identical 'mistakes' in seperate species is good evidence for their common ancestry because it is STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY that exactly the same mistake would have arisen twice seperately by CHANCE. Far more likely the 'mistake' arose once and the species split.

The fact that this is ALSO an inconvenient fact for the Creator hypothesis does not make ToE religiously based. It's just another example of ToE being intellectually satisfying where 'Goddidit' is lacking.

Perhaps once you people actually admit that "science" is giving the wrong answer, Mr Hunter will deign to supply you the right one.

That's how Copernicus convinced everyone about heliocentrism. He knew better than to just tell people about it and let its explanatory superiority convince them. No, he knew that he had to keep it a secret until he could get everyone to admit that geocentrism was wrong. Only when everyone finally admitted that did he offer his own heliocentric theory as the superior alternative.

Remember, if you have a theory that explains something better than the current theory, do not under any circumstances tell anyone about it until you've first convinced others that they are wrong. People respond very well to being told they are wrong without good reason.

Ritchie:"No. Common Descent is not being tested against the Creator hypothesis - it is being tested against random chance! Two identical 'mistakes' in seperate species is good evidence for their common ancestry because it is STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY that exactly the same mistake would have arisen twice seperately by CHANCE. Far more likely the 'mistake' arose once and the species split."

With the exception of all the cases of convergent evolution when the statistically unlikely happened.

With the exception of all the cases of convergent evolution when the statistically unlikely happened.

You're confusing absolute statistically unlikely with relative statistically unlikely. Scientists prefer hypotheses that are statistically more likely, given the data. Everything is statistically unlikely in the absolute sense, in a sense. :)

The model for convergent evolution is also relatively simple: similar selection "pressures" on tuna and dolphins have caused the evolution of similar streamlined body shapes. The model does not assume that the same sequence of mutations has occurred in tuna and dolphins.

"With the exception of all the cases of convergent evolution when the statistically unlikely happened."

Not so. It is not statistically unlikely that two very distantly related species will evolve similar characteristics when exposed to the same environments and, specifically, the same selection pressures. The streamlined shapes of both fish and dolphins, for example, came about because they both developed bodies for moving through water. The same selection pressures were acting on both species.

What Cornelius Hunter (or, more specifically, Sober) is referring to is not merely convergent evolution, but homology - different species evolving the same traits for which there is no adaptive necessity. For example, all mammals have five fingers and the same arrangments of bones in their 'hands', even though different mammalian species use their forelimbs to perform a wide variety of functions, such as digging (moles), flying (bats), running (cats), swimming (whales) and manipulating (humans). No selection pressure accounts for this convergency. Common ancestry does.

Ritchie:"Not so. It is not statistically unlikely that two very distantly related species will evolve similar characteristics when exposed to the same environments and, specifically, the same selection pressures. The streamlined shapes of both fish and dolphins, for example, came about because they both developed bodies for moving through water. The same selection pressures were acting on both species.

What Cornelius Hunter (or, more specifically, Sober) is referring to is not merely convergent evolution, but homology - different species evolving the same traits for which there is no adaptive necessity. For example, all mammals have five fingers and the same arrangments of bones in their 'hands', even though different mammalian species use their forelimbs to perform a wide variety of functions, such as digging (moles), flying (bats), running (cats), swimming (whales) and manipulating (humans). No selection pressure accounts for this convergency. Common ancestry does."

So selections pressures can change a four legs mammal in a "fish like" body dolphin but not change the number of fingers for better fly?

Ritchie:Two identical 'mistakes' in seperate species is good evidence for their common ancestry because it is STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY that exactly the same mistake would have arisen twice seperately by CHANCE.

Sorry, once you support Darwinism you don't get to use probability as an argument for or against anything, ever. You've rejected it as a factor that can help us to draw conclusions. You can't say that all forms of life were produced by a series of billions of fortunate accidents and then suggest that something else didn't happen because it's improbable.

Ritchie: Two identical 'mistakes' in seperate species is good evidence for their common ancestry because it is STATISTICALLY UNLIKELY that exactly the same mistake would have arisen twice seperately by CHANCE.

Sorry, once you support Darwinism you don't get to use probability as an argument for or against anything, ever. You've rejected it as a factor that can help us to draw conclusions.

Don't be so dumb. What gets rejected is the improper use of probability theory in the unsupported 'ZOMG it's SOOOOO improbable' arguments you IDiots like to trot out. In this case Richie is talking about the relative probabilities, and there is indeed enough data to support the idea that one outcome is more improbable than the other.

You can't say that all forms of life were produced by a series of billions of fortunate accidents and then suggest that something else didn't happen because it's improbable.

No one in the scientific community ever said all forms of life were produced by a series of billions of fortunate accidents. Please, it's too early in the week to trot out that stupid strawman.

badwiring said, "Sorry, once you support Darwinism you don't get to use probability as an argument for or against anything, ever. You've rejected it as a factor that can help us to draw conclusions. You can't say that all forms of life were produced by a series of billions of fortunate accidents and then suggest that something else didn't happen because it's improbable. "

--

Good point. Evolutionists like to interpret the data just willy nilly as it suits them. So called 'mistakes' are said to be improbable to happen twice, yet 'convergence' of elegant functions and features is not a problem for evolutionists!

I wish I had a dollar for every time an evolutionist pointed out some kind of flaw in nature only for their biased and willy nilly point to be overturned.

---

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light blub?

All numbers are valid... Any answer will be accommodated to fit the theory!

"Sorry, once you support Darwinism you don't get to use probability as an argument for or against anything, ever. You've rejected it as a factor that can help us to draw conclusions. You can't say that all forms of life were produced by a series of billions of fortunate accidents and then suggest that something else didn't happen because it's improbable."

Thornton's spot on. This is a weak-as-water Creationist strawman. Natural selection is categorically a non-random process and the very reason ToE is viable and absolutely not just the product of 'fortunate accidents'. It is a theory drawn up, like all scientific theories, on relative probabilities, and uses random chance as a null hypothesis.

Seriously, 'ToE = random chance' is one of the dopiest creationist fallacies, and that's obviously up against some pretty stiff competition. You really should take a moment to learn why it's so patently false.

Ritchie said:Don't be so dumb. What gets rejected is the improper use of probability theory in the unsupported 'ZOMG it's SOOOOO improbable' arguments you IDiots like to trot out.

I do understand. Only you are allowed to make the point that something is unlikely and therefore not a good explanation. That argument is only valid when it suits you. Two creatures having the same "vestigial" features without common descent? Nonsense! Two creatures developing nearly identical eyes as a result of convergent mutation and selection? You don't even blink at that. Billions of evolutionary steps that require two or more mutations simultaneously, with no guarantee of any immediate survival advantage? Forget the improbabilities, we have deep time and can throw infinite universes on the table if needed.But then, when it suits you, probability suddenly regains the ability to filter likely explanations from ridiculous ones.Darwin bless you.

b) Science is not a game where you dismiss whatever you don't like the sound of. The key is evidence. Any proposition in the world can be shown to be probably true with evidence. And evidence is something ToE has in spades. If absolutely any part of ToE sounds unlikely to you, then might I suggest you simply don't understand the evidence supporting it.

ToE is absolutely not a process of random chance. And the evidence shows it to be streets ahead of any competing theory on a probabilistic basis.

Thorton said: Don't be so dumb. What gets rejected is the improper use of probability theory in the unsupported 'ZOMG it's SOOOOO improbable' arguments you IDiots like to trot out.

I do understand. Only you are allowed to make the point that something is unlikely and therefore not a good explanation.

Apparently you don't understand. Probabilities are only useful / valid if there is enough data to calculate them with sufficient accuracy. When you IDiots start in with the 'the flagellum (or whatever) is too improbable to have arisen on its own' you don't have near enough info to make that determination. When comparing the relative probabilities of common descent vs. random occurrences we do have enough data to make a valid statistical determination.

There are any number of SW programs available that use statistical analysis to detect plagiarism in writing (i.e 'common descent' of a document). How do you suppose they work?

Sorry, I got the name wrong. But it's still a valid point. Do you understand the implications of great improbability? In essence you're arguing that until someone can tell you with mathematical precision whether the odds are 1 in 10^60 or 1 in 10^70, you're going to accept something as the most reasonable explanation, despite not having a single specific of how it might have happened. You claim to understand probability so well, but it's not doing you much good. It's like arguing that you understand traffic laws better than I do and then driving off a cliff.Darwin bless you.

My point isn't that you don't understand probability. The point is, who cares? You don't apply it. You put faith in events where the odds trail countless zeros, but you reason that it doesn't matter as long as no one can count the zeros. That is blind faith. It says nothing about science or reason, only that you prefer believing it to not believing it. Darwin bless you.

My point isn't that you don't understand probability. The point is, who cares? You don't apply it. You put faith in events where the odds trail countless zeros, but you reason that it doesn't matter as long as no one can count the zeros.

You don't have enough information to determine there are "countless zeros".

That is blind faith. It says nothing about science or reason, only that you prefer believing it to not believing it.

No, it is acceptance of the most logically consistent and parsimonious explanation based on the consilience of the evidence.

Science has 150+ years worth of specifics of how evolution happens. Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.The specifics you refer to are, 'Something mutated and then it got selected, we're not sure which genes or when or how or in which order, or maybe it was epigenetics or gene transfer. We've got a dozen competing ideas but whatever the heck it was, gosh darnit, it happened over and over again.'The evidence isn't missing. The theory is. And you call it specific. Darwin bless you.

Who said I even believe in ID or creationism? Maybe I just think that what you're pitching is nonsense, religion masquerading as science. I don't need to provide an alternative just because your proposition is irrational and faith-based. No reasoning person should take it seriously, and most don't. Darwin bless you.

T: "Science has 150+ years worth of specifics of how evolution happens. Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist."

The specifics you refer to are, 'Something mutated and then it got selected, we're not sure which genes or when or how or in which order, or maybe it was epigenetics or gene transfer. We've got a dozen competing ideas but whatever the heck it was, gosh darnit, it happened over and over again.' The evidence isn't missing. The theory is. And you call it specific. Darwin bless you.

"my question is why selection pressure changed the body for water life and do not changed (added or removed a finger) in bats for better fly?"

Well changing a body to adapt to a different environment means selecting on variation that is already there.

Imagine a dog-like species. It lives on land. But for some reason, pickings are slim lately. However, it finds better pickings are to be had down by the water - perhaps beachcombing for carrion, or hunting slow marine animals. Certain adaptions will be helpful, and thus, will be selected for: thicker fur to keep warm in the water - webbed feet, etc. What's important to keep in mind is that these changes do not just appear in a single generation. There is already variance in fur density/length, and it is the thickest fur which is selected for. There is already skin between toes, but now long skin is selected for.

Over time this species starts to spend more and more time in the water and less and less on land. For low-slung creatures who ambush from water (such as crocodiles), short legs are better than long ones. There's another selection pressure. There's also the fact that legs are more of a hindarance than help for aquatic creatures. Smaller, shorter arms are being selected for.

Now imagine the creature is becoming pretty much exclusively aquatic. Body fat is better insulation than thick fur, since fur can cause drag and hamper its speed. So body fat is selected for and fur is selected against. The front arms are now used for steering rather than walking, so flat, flipper-like arms are better than long, load-bearing ones, while the back ones might retreat altogether size the best back-leg size is zero.

What is important to remember is that these changes work be degrees. Leg length, body fat percentage, fur thickness, toe webbing, are all things which exist to some degree. And there is variation in them. All evolution is doing is applying a selection pressure to that variation.

By contrast, there is little variation in the number of fingers creatures have. Some species have fused fingers together (again, a process which can be done in incremental steps) but to produce a sixth, perfectly functioning finger? That is asking for an adaptation to spring up, entire, complete and functioning in a single step. Which is something evolution does not do.

Scientists hit the big time by proving some incredible new theory. That's how they become famous, world-renowned. Eistein, Newton and Hawking didn't go down in history by towing the mainstream line. Science is an indutry that rewards radical thinkers.

It does not, however reward people who use unscientific methods to try to prove themselves correct. That is generally where many who complain about the 'bullying, conservative scientific elite' come a cropper.

"This is misleading. The evolution of complex systems would require many completely random and happy steps (neutral mutations) for which natural selection is not relevant."

Neither is it 'happy'. When animals reproduce you get genetic mistakes - mutations. This is not unlikely. It is far more likely than being copied complete and absolutely mutation-free 100% of the time. I don't know why you would think neutral genetic variation is unlikely.

Sorry, once you support Darwinism you don't get to use probability as an argument for or against anything, ever.

The probability [that organisms X and Y both have trait T and there was selection for T and common ancestry] divided by the probability [that organisms X and Y both have trait T and there was selection for T and given separate ancestry] is close to 1.

The probability [that organisms X and Y both have trait T and there was NO selection for T and common ancestry] divided by the probability [that organisms X and Y both have trait T and there was NO selection for T and given separate ancestry] is much larger than 1.

BadWiring: Maybe I just think that what you're pitching is nonsense, religion masquerading as science.

And maybe you're against explanations for any phenomena you believe to be divinely revealed as a direct cause of God. After all, if God is unexplainable, then anything he directly causes must also be unexplainable as well.

Maybe you've bought into the supposedly divinely revealed cosmic battle of Good and Evil, presented by Apocalyptic theodicy, in which everyone takes sides, whether they know it or not. Evolutionary theory would be collateral damage in the battle, as it would be though corrupted by sin.

Perhaps you think that each species represents intentional outcomes, the details of which were defined and created primarily as a whole, which would have an effect on the sort of odds that you're considering.

Any of these ring a bell? Or, to be more precise, do you deny accepting these things as truth?

BadWiring: I don't need to provide an alternative just because your proposition is irrational and faith-based. No reasoning person should take it seriously, and most don't.

You don't have to do anything. You're free to believe whatever you want. However, if you want your objections to be taken seriously, then you'll need to pony up to the bar.

"Why? You can change an entire body in small steps an cannot add or remove a finger in smalls steps? Sounds logic to you?"

You can change a body in tiny incremental steps because there is variation in body shape. Some dogs have longer then average legs, some have shorter than average legs. If having short legs is an advantage, dogs with short legs with have an advantage over ones with long legs.

Asking for a fully functional finger to appear or disappear onto a hand which is coincidentally shaped to take advantage of it is too big a leap to make in one go probabilistically. It is just too much to happen at once.

"Have you heard about the guy in the NASA fired because he was talking about ID? Have you saw expelled?"

In this day and age, being an ID advocate is practically synonymous with doing bad science. Not because ID challenges the status quo, but because it is a religiously-driven and thoroughly unscientific 'theory'. Expelled is a wonderful example of people being shunned because they eshew the scientific method, NOT (despite their claims) because their ideas are 'too radical'. Michael Behe, practically the founder of the ID movement, still works at Lehigh University. If mainstream science is so hostile to ID advocates, why is he still teaching at this place?

MrT said..."Science is providing the best explanation it can. When CH provides a better one that can be tested and proven to supersede ToE then, given time, all right thinking people will come to accept it."

This is true for science. But evolution is history, or if you want sicence of events in the past. You do not need a better theory for the bulding of piramids by egiptian to discard the false theories. If somebody says that they had caterpillars to build them you can think it is improbable without given an alternative.

This is misleading. The evolution of complex systems would require many completely random and happy steps (neutral mutations) for which natural selection is not relevant.

I`m not sure where you`re going with this. In a study*, humans had from 2.8 million to 4.2 million single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in their genomes. Individuals usually had more than 20,000 protein-coding SNVs where roughly half of these were amino-acid changing, affecting some 1,300 to 1,500 genes. If most of these mutations were not neutral (or close to), then either (1) the persons would have been ill (there is no indication that they were), or (2) there would have to have been lots of positive mutations to counter-balance the bad ones.

I.e. it seems like there are a lot of neutral mutations. Or, the effects of all the negative and positive mutations out-weigh eachother.

"The point is that completely random events play a large and necessary role in your theory. Your theory is dependent on random events. Yes?"

Yes, but that is only half the story. The mechanism for ToE is natural selection, which is non-random. Natural selection acts on existing genetic variation. Like a ratchet it pushed the genetic pool in one direction only - towards greater fitness. That is fixed and unchanging. Thus it is a non-random process. See?

"Asking for a fully functional finger to appear or disappear onto a hand which is coincidentally shaped to take advantage of it is too big a leap to make in one go probabilistically. It is just too much to happen at once."

Why should happened at once? Eyes, according to ToE developed in small steps more than once.

And the difference between the dolphin and his supposed ancestor is far more than the shape of the body.

"Why should happened at once? Eyes, according to ToE developed in small steps more than once."

Look at your hand. How could you develop a sixth finger in small and incremental steps, each one being a selective advantage over the previous one?

"And the difference between the dolphin and his supposed ancestor is far more than the shape of the body."

Is it? Dolphins are warm-blooded like mammals. They breathe air like mammals. They carry their young in wombs and produce milk like mammals. What fundamental differences do you imagine seperates dolphins from their terrestrial ancestors besides bodyshape?

Ritchie, a very fortunate and improbable mix of neutral mutations, which are random, forms the basis for later possible selection. The improbability issues arise from the number of neutral mutations that must accumulate before any selection is possible. The improbability of the right accumulation of neutral mutations rises exponentially with each mutation. Douglas Axe at biologic institute has some research you may be interested in here:

"Ritchie, a very fortunate and improbable mix of neutral mutations, which are random, forms the basis for later possible selection."

No. Whilst any SPECIFIC mutation is itself improbable, the fact that there will be genetic variation is not imporbable. It is probable.

Evolution does not need SPECIFIC mutations - it just needs variation, which itself is probable.

"The improbability issues arise from the number of neutral mutations that must accumulate before any selection is possible. The improbability of the right accumulation of neutral mutations rises exponentially with each mutation."

What is the RIGHT acculumation? RIGHT for what? There need not be a RIGHT acculutlaion of anything. There need only be variation. Which in itself is probable.

"http://www.biologicinstitute.org/"

Can you be more specific please. Which article do you want me to read?

You should at least read links before you post them. It is not about the mechanisms of evolution. I repeat that the specifics of this theory do not exist to be supported or disparaged. Most people will ask you for evidence to back their claims. I won't, because I'm so generous. I'll just ask you to produce the claims themselves. What is the consensus view of the "academia" you pompously referenced on how new anatomical features and behaviors were and are produced?My point is that there really is no explanation. This evolved into that because "something happened." Hand-waving. There was a niche and this creature fit into it. It was selected.Go ahead, tell me it's my ignorance. I'm a fool because I can't see the emperor's clothes. Darwin bless you for your stalwart faith.

Ritchie said...Look at your hand. How could you develop a sixth finger in small and incremental steps, each one being a selective advantage over the previous one?

ToE explains that lungs, feathers, eyes, wings, echolocation, sexual reproduction, multicelularity evolved in small incremental steps each one being a selective advantage over the previous one and a finger is not possible?

What fundamental differences do you imagine seperates dolphins from their terrestrial ancestors besides bodyshape?

"ToE explains that lungs, feathers, eyes, wings, echolocation, sexual reproduction, multicelularity evolved in small incremental steps each one being a selective advantage over the previous one and a finger is not possible?"

A finger is phenominally unlikely. Consider - what use would a sixth finger be? We already have five on each hand. Why would a sixth be an advantage?

"And all the adaptations to leave in sea water?"

If a dolphin is just a mammal adapted to living in the sea, then that kinda supports the notion that it evolved from a land-living mammal.

What you need to find is a fundamental biological difference between dolphins and terrestrial mammals which is categorically NOT just an adaptation to sea life of a mammalian feature.

Ritchie, a very fortunate and improbable mix of neutral mutations, which are random, forms the basis for later possible selection. The improbability issues arise from the number of neutral mutations that must accumulate before any selection is possible. The improbability of the right accumulation of neutral mutations rises exponentially with each mutation.

No. The improbability of the specific combination of mutations we see today being duplicated rises exponentially with each mutation. But there is no evidence that the specific combination we see today is the only 'right' combination.

It's the same stupid mistake Creationists like Tedford the idiot here make over and over. Because a specific winning lottery number is improbable doesn't make having any number win be improbable.

Do you really think I've never heard of any of these things before? They're plastered everywhere. What missing is a single explanation, even a hypothetical one, of how they actually produce anything beyond a finch with a slightly curved beak. And even then not everyone agrees that any of the mechanisms you described are responsible.How can there be evidence when there is no theory?

It's a bit like a coroner who says, I'm certain this man was murdered. It's scientifically conclusive. He was either shot or stabbed or strangled or poisoned, or maybe some combination. And don't question me, I'm the coroner.

Do you see the point? If he doesn't know which artery was severed by a bullet or which poison shut down which organ, how can he claim to know anything?Likewise, ToE is big on the sweeping statements and hand waving, but light on the sort of illuminating detail that discerning minds require. But Darwin bless you for trying. He knows that you believe in him.

It's a bit like a coroner who says, I'm certain this man was murdered. It's scientifically conclusive. He was either shot or stabbed or strangled or poisoned, or maybe some combination. And don't question me, I'm the coroner.

It`s like the coroner and the rest of the CSI team who say: `We`re certain that this man was murdered. He was tied to a chair and there was an empty canister (with an open valve) of carbon monoxide in the room where the victim was found. He could not have tied himself down. There was someone elses fingerprints on the valve. The pink color of the victims skin indicate that he died from carbon monoxide poisoning. It`s also possible that he died from exposure from cold, which would lead to the same skin hue. It was cold in the room, but on it`s own, this would probably not have killed him, but it might have been a contributing factor.

But wait, says Cornelius Hunter. This is pure metaphysics. You have failed to consider all possible hypotheses. You are, in effect, claiming that no Creator would, for example, make it LOOK like the man was murdered.*

*I`m not sure whether or not you subscribe to Cornelius` crappy metephysics verbal diarrhea and if you don`t, then please ignore this paragraph.

Really, descent is a mechanism of evolution? If there was only living thing and it never reproduced, it would never evolve? Wow, that is illuminating. Except that reproduction had to evolve. Never mind, more darkness.I'm not claiming that the others don't exist. But just naming a bunch of possible ways that genes can change does not support the premise that they can create and design in a way that mimics deliberate planning, foresight, and creativity. Just like being able name five or ten ways that a person can be murdered doesn't provide evidence of murder, especially when it's uncertain whether any are even fatal.You left recombination and epigenetics off your list. See, I can even help you out. But there's not even a hypothetical account of how one or more of those "mechanisms" acted to produce any significant feature in a living thing. There's only faith that with all of these possible mechanisms, Something Amazing Happened. Darwin bless you for swallowing the hook, line, and sinker while waiting for specific evidence.

The point of the coroner is that he looks at the body and the evidence and tells you what happened. The bullet entered here. It punctured this ventricle. Etc.If the coroner just lists off a bunch of possible causes but can't tell you specifically which one and when, why should you believe that he actually has a clue what happened? That's Darwinism. If a series of mutations and selection can put hoofs on a horse or suction cups on a squid, tell us about the mutations. If it was genetic drift, tell us how that worked. If you can explain the suction cups in detail, I might believe you about the hoofs even if you haven't figured that one out yet.But don't just list a bunch of things and say that you're absolutely sure it was one of these or some of these. That doesn't inspire any more confidence than the aforementioned coroner.

Do you really think I've never heard of any of these things before? They're plastered everywhere. What missing is a single explanation, even a hypothetical one, of how they actually produce anything beyond a finch with a slightly curved beak. And even then not everyone agrees that any of the mechanisms you described are responsible.

How can there be evidence when there is no theory?

All the mechanisms described to you are the theory. That's all covered in great detail in the many references you were shown but refuse to read and/or understand.

We show you a car, explain how it works and you demand to see the individual parts. So we list the individual parts along with their functions and you go "no, I demand to see a whole car!"

What, specifically, do you think you should be shown? Every last single mutation that happened between a land mammal and a whale? What?

What I meant by descent was that genetic information has to be heritable and passed onto future progeny.

Exactly how this was done was not at all understood by Darwin himself. He merely concluded from his theory that some mechanism must exist which does this.

Then Gregor Mendel came along demonstrated exactly how traits are passed on to future generations, spearheading the branch of science we call Genetics, spectacularly validating Darwin.

Neither are any of the other mechanisms I mention, as you seem to suggest, merely speculatory or hypothetical. Each has been studied and explored at great length, and each does, despite your protestations, explain exactly how life came to be exactly the way it is.

Also, unlike various forms of murder, they are not mutually exclusive. It is not that 'evolution occurred via natural selection OR gentic drift OR mutatuion OR something else, we're not sure which...' All these mechanisms DO occur and they all play their part in evolution.

"You left recombination and epigenetics off your list."

I did. I also left horizonal gene transfer. I do not claim my list is fully comprehensive. But if you can get to grips with even the fundamentals of these core principles then that'll go a long way in helping you understand why claiming that evolution is as vague and unevidenced as you claim is quite so staggeringly ignorant.

"there's not even a hypothetical account of how one or more of those "mechanisms" acted to produce any significant feature in a living thing."

Utter nonsense. Speciation alone has been directly observed many times in both the lab and in the field. To pluck an example off the top of my head, several beautiful studies with E.Coli are beautiful demonstrations of the mechanisms of evolution in action:

"Now materialists-darwinists will rightly turn around and ask -OK how did God do it?Show me, prove it.

What is the answer to that? St. Peter manipulating DNA with nano-tweezers? I cannot give that answer.I have no answer."

You make an interesting point. It certainly has no bearing on the validity of ToE, but just out of curiosity while we're on the subject, those who champion divine intervention certainly do have a duty to explain the MECHANISMS by which this mysterious agent might have brought about/tinkered with life. I for one would love to hear what they are.

For most, I imagine 'It was a miracle' will suffice. How very scientific.

Not the E.Coli again. You're citing studies that powerfully demonstrate the limits of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, and using them to suggest that such limits do not exist. Science shows that E.Coli become slightly different E.Coli, even when given more reproductive cycles than every mammal that ever lived.Darwin bless you for facing such damning evidence with optimism and faith.

Abstract: The specialization of the forelimb into a wing allowed bats to become the only mammals to achieve powered flight. Recent studies in developmental biology have begun to elucidate the molecular mechanisms behind elements of this important morphological transformation. Specifically, researchers have identified molecular changes contributing to: the formation of the bat wing membrane, the elongation of skeletal elements of the bat wing and the reduction of the bat ulna. The general picture emerging from this research is that small changes in the expression of genes critical to many aspects of development have driven large changes in bat wing morphology. Thus, bats can be added to the growing list of groups in which expression changes in key developmental genes have been linked to the evolution of morphological innovations (e.g. early bilaterians, cetaceans, insects).

"Not the E.Coli again. You're citing studies that powerfully demonstrate the limits of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, and using them to suggest that such limits do not exist. Science shows that E.Coli become slightly different E.Coli, even when given more reproductive cycles than every mammal that ever lived."

The limits of evolution? What are you talking about? Lanski's bacteria study alone is not only a beautiful example of evolution in action, showing new information entering genomes without the intervention of a designer and demonstrating the power of natural selection to put together allegedly 'vastly improbable' combinations of genes, but it also undermines the founding principle of irreducible complexity.

Read what you just posted, and see how you've been taken. The researchers claim to have identified that bat's genes are responsible for their morphology. Really, stop the presses.Then, having done some real science, they tack this on at the end:

Thus, bats can be added to the growing list of groups in which expression changes in key developmental genes have been linked to the evolution of morphological innovations

So they tell us that morphology is an expression of genes, they throw in the afterthought that it's all a result of evolution, without supplying the reason for that assumption.

But when this passes through your filter, what comes out on the other side is amazing evidence for the creative power of random mutation and selection, even though it shows nothing of the sort.

If that's your standard, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence out there.

The limitation is that you never, ever get anything that wouldn't be immediately recognizable as E.Coli. If you want to define evolution as tiny variations between parents and offspring, fine, I'm on board. There's genetic variation in everything that reproduces. It takes more than that to make your case.

Badwiring, here's another recent paper on the molecular changes that led to leg evolution in whales and other vertebrates.

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and lossBejder, HallEVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 4:6, 445–458 (2002)

Abstract: We address the developmental and evolutionary mechanisms underlying fore- and hindlimb development and progressive hindlimb reduction and skeletal loss in whales and evaluate whether the genetic, developmental,and evolutionary mechanisms thought to be responsible for limb loss in snakes “explain” loss of the hindlimbs in whales. Limb loss and concurrent morphological and physiological changes associated with the transition from land to water are discussed within the context of the current whale phylogeny. Emphasis is placed on fore- and hindlimb development, how the forelimbs transformed into flippers, and how the hindlimbs regressed, leaving either no elements or vestigial skeletal elements. Hindlimbs likely began to regress only after the ancestors of whales entered the aquatic environment: Hindlimb function was co-opted by the undulatory vertical axial locomotion made possible by the newly evolved caudal flukes. Loss of the hindlimbs was associated with elongation of the body during the transition from land to water. Limblessness in most snakes is also associated with adoption of a new (burrowing) lifestyle and was driven by developmental changes associated with elongation of the body. Parallels between adaptation to burrowing or to the aquatic environment reflect structural and functional changes associated with the switch to axial locomotion. Because they are more fully studied and to determine whether hindlimb loss in lineages that are not closely related could result from similar genetically controlleddevelopmental pathways, we discuss developmental (cellular and genetic) processes that may have driven limb loss in snakes and leg-less lizards and compare these processes tothe loss of hindlimbs in whales. In neither group does ontogenetic or phylogenetic limb reduction result from failure to initiate limb development. In both groups limb loss results from arrested development at the limb bud stage, as a result of inability to maintain necessary inductive tissue interactions andenhanced cell death over that seen in limbed tetrapods. An evolutionary change in Hox gene expression—as occurs in snakes—or in Hox gene regulation—as occurs in some limbless mutants—is unlikely to have initiated loss of the hindlimbs in cetaceans. Selective pressures acting on a wide range of developmental processes and adult traits other than the limbs are likely to have driven the loss of hindlimbs in whales.

Read what you just posted, and see how you've been taken. The researchers claim to have identified that bat's genes are responsible for their morphology. Really, stop the presses. Then, having done some real science, they tack this on at the end:

Thus, bats can be added to the growing list of groups in which expression changes in key developmental genes have been linked to the evolution of morphological innovations

So they tell us that morphology is an expression of genes, they throw in the afterthought that it's all a result of evolution, without supplying the reason for that assumption.

Wow, the willful ignorance shields are strong in this one.

So basically no matter how many research studies we show you, even ones with the specific details you demanded, you're going to cover your ears and go LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!

In a perfect world such willful ignorance would be physically painful.

I read through it. Much like the bat article, it merely describes how various genes are expressed in whale morphology. It notes that certain physical traits are well suited life in water, which is clearly meant to imply that the whale adapted such traits to live in water. But that line of thought is abandoned and never supported.In essence, it talks a lot about whales and snakes and throws in the word "evolutionary" a lot. That way you're blinded by the science and don't realize that nothing evolutionary is actually being supported. It's just an article on the differences between animals with and without limbs.As I said, with those standards, I'm sure you can bury me in evidence.Darwin bless you and the dolphins.

"The limitation is that you never, ever get anything that wouldn't be immediately recognizable as E.Coli."

What did you want to happen? One strain to miraculously turn into a goldfish?

The twelve strains all evolved to exploit their food source (glucose for all) in different ways. They speciated. Keep going and they'll change more - split them up into more groups and they'll change in even more ways. That's speciation - evolution in action!

"If you want to define evolution as tiny variations between parents and offspring, fine, I'm on board. There's genetic variation in everything that reproduces. It takes more than that to make your case."

Good, I'm glad we're that far at least. Now picture one species (of anything) speciating - that it, splitting into two groups which, by virture of being kept apart, become so genetically different that they cannot reproduce. They are now seperate species. Now imagine those two groups splitting into four. And then splitting again into eight. What you have is more and more distinct and seperate species, each unique and different from the rest. Yet go back far enough and hey all have a common ancestor.

Thornton, you can't just keep throwing studies at me and then blaming me because they fail to support your position. I didn't just dismiss your papers. I told you clearly why they were lacking. Don't be sore. This is a learning experience for you. You have a chance to realize that the "mountain of evidence" for darwinian evolution is nothing but implications and speculations no matter how deep you dig.

So Tedford, you ready to give us your alternate explanation for vestigial and atavistic features? None of the other IDers will."

Look at this demonstration of utterly missing the point while proving it!

Notice that this response is just what CH is talking about above!

Jeepers man, can't you even see that asking for an alternate explanation and then implying that if one has none then Darwinism must be true - as you, Scott, Ritchie and all your Darwiener buddies do here all the time - is precisely part of the point of fallacious logic that CH is pointing at?!

I'd bet $$$ that you still don't get it thorn, and are sitting there wondering how you demonstrated the salient FACT pointed out in CH's article.

Jeepers man, can't you even see that asking for an alternate explanation and then implying that if one has none then Darwinism must be true - as you, Scott, Ritchie and all your Darwiener buddies do here all the time - is precisely part of the point of fallacious logic that CH is pointing at?!

Except no one here said that moron. No one in science says ToE is right by default. We say ToE is the explanation best supported by the evidence. You clowns keep telling us ToE is wrong but can't provide any other explanations. So you lose.

What did you want to happen? One strain to miraculously turn into a goldfish?

You're being just like Thornton, blaming me when your so-called evidence comes up short. You would have me believe that every variety of plant and animal in the earth and sea and all of their behaviors come from these mechanisms. Isn't it reasonable that I should expect to see something? I'm not asking for a goldfish. Maybe a bacteria that's not recognizable as E.Coli. Remember - we're talking about at least the same number of generations that went from mice to men. And elephants. And horses. And whales.So when you say, "Look - it's eating different food!" Sorry, that's not much.I'll be generous and allow that the lack of amazing evolution proves nothing. But it certainly doesn't do your side any favors.

Thornton,Well, none of the 150+ years of scientific positive evidence I can provide meets your standard:

"says so in my Holy Bible"

so why are you at a supposedly science discussion forum?

How is what I believe relevant? I could believe in unicorns and flying saucers. It wouldn't stop me from pointing out, for the sake of onlookers, that they're being fed a lot of nonsense. People don't question it because they don't think about it. They watch X-Men and Heroes where people grow laser eyes and read minds because of evolution. I just like to show what's behind the curtain.

"I'm not asking for a goldfish. Maybe a bacteria that's not recognizable as E.Coli."

Progeny never stop being what their ancestors were. As the Creationists love to say, a dog will never give birth to a non-dog.

What happens is BRANCHING! SPECIATION! The descendants of a chimpanzee will never stop being a chimanzee. The descendants of an ape will never stop being an ape. The descentants of a mammal will never stop being a mammal. The descendants of a vertibrate will never stop being a vertibrate.

Asking for one of the E.Coli strains to turn into something that isn't E.Coli is exactly like asking a dog to give birth to a non-dog. It will never happen. Yet if dogs are successful and thrive then we will eventually see different varieties of dogs arise, split and speciate, from tiny chihuahuas to hulking great danes.

You can count me as your first convert, then. I've observed plenty of variations within species and have never seen a dog produce a non-dog.I'm glad we've found common ground that the ancestors of men are men, those of dogs of dogs, etc. We understand that genes allow for variations within a type, but not for one type to produce another.Gee, what was all the fuss about?

What did you want to happen? One strain to miraculously turn into a goldfish?

You're being just like Thornton, blaming me when your so-called evidence comes up short. You would have me believe that every variety of plant and animal in the earth and sea and all of their behaviors come from these mechanisms. Isn't it reasonable that I should expect to see something? I'm not asking for a goldfish. Maybe a bacteria that's not recognizable as E.Coli. Remember - we're talking about at least the same number of generations that went from mice to men. And elephants. And horses. And whales. So when you say, "Look - it's eating different food!" Sorry, that's not much. I'll be generous and allow that the lack of amazing evolution proves nothing. But it certainly doesn't do your side any favors.

In other words, to demonstrate evolution our new creationist buddy here demands to see a walrus evolve into a rutabaga.

Thornton:Then tell us what your standard is for acceptable evidence. We've given you numerous examples of what you claimed 'didn't exist' and all you can do is go "NUH UH! like some snotty little kid.

I rejected your "evidence" because it failed to demonstrate anything. It made routine scientific observations and then tacked on irrelevant evolutionary implications.

That doesn't matter. Your manner is unacceptable. You fail to persuade and so you resort to childish insults. It's typical, but more blatant than usual. It is beneath me to further discuss this with you. You are not my equal.

This must be my last thought before I do other things. Don't you see the contradiction, stating that one kind can only produce more of its own, but that it can descend from something else? How did shrew-like creatures give rise to man if they can only produce shrew-like creatures?

Thornton: Then tell us what your standard is for acceptable evidence. We've given you numerous examples of what you claimed 'didn't exist' and all you can do is go "NUH UH! like some snotty little kid.

I rejected your "evidence" because it failed to demonstrate anything. It made routine scientific observations and then tacked on irrelevant evolutionary implications.

That doesn't matter. Your manner is unacceptable. You fail to persuade and so you resort to childish insults. It's typical, but more blatant than usual. It is beneath me to further discuss this with you. You are not my equal.

Awww poor wittle man got his feewings all hurt. Having to face reality often does that to Creationists.

"Don't you see the contradiction, stating that one kind can only produce more of its own, but that it can descend from something else? How did shrew-like creatures give rise to man if they can only produce shrew-like creatures?"

Consider the dog again. All domestic dogs arise from the grey wolf. Think of that for a moment. The grey wolf gave rise to chihuahuas, terriers, poodles, huskies, labradors, boxers and great danes. A chihuahua is, essentially, a really tiny yappy wolf. Yet was there ever a moment when these desendants of the first domesticated grey wolves ever gave birth to a non-grey wolf? Essentially no. All dogs are grey wolves - with modifications.

The same principle is true all over the tree of life. There was once a shrew-like species which first developed a mammary gland. This species went on to sire all the mammals. All mammals are this shrew-like creature - with modifications. It's just that the shrew creature is such a distant relative that by now the 'modifications' have become so wide and varied to prodice all the variation we see in the mammalian kingdom.

I admit the comparison is not perfect. For one thing, dogs are divided into breeds, not species, and as such they can interbreed. Nevertheless, the principle is the same. Prevent gene flow and these breeds will eventually become seperate species. We have lots of evidence this does indeed happen.

Secondly, dogs are domesticated and thus not really subject to natural selection. We humans breed them as we see fit. The 'modifications' have been brought about by humans. But again, the principle holds. In the wild, nature plays the part we humans do in selective breeding.

I chose dogs as an example a) because the different breeds are a familiar and useful example of branching b) the Creationist line.

That doesn't matter. Your manner is unacceptable. You fail to persuade and so you resort to childish insults. It's typical, but more blatant than usual. It is beneath me to further discuss this with you. You are not my equal.

After further reflection this needs to be addressed.

Badwiring, you are the one who should be embarrassed by your churlish and uncivil behavior. You're the one who came in here guns blazing, and when people politely tried to correct your misunderstandings all you did was spit at them. I know I spent not inconsiderable time doing the research you should have done, and when I posted scientific papers for you with the evidence you demanded you hand-waved them away without even reading them. That's pretty damn rude in anyone's book. Personally I have no patient for 'holier-than-thou' Creationists like you who think faux polite language gives you free reign to otherwise behave like a jackass. You're right, I am not your equal. I'm intellectually honest, which makes me your better.

Thank you for your lesson in polite, civil behavior. You are a shining beacon. I'm sorry that the papers you posted contained vague speculation and hand waving, and you are fully justified in lashing out when this is pointed out to you. Compensating for the weakness of one's argument with emotional personal attacks is a time honored tradition. Regrettably your technique is lacking. I'll give you a 4 for projecting your own failings onto your opponent, but a generous 7 for name-calling.

Thank you for your lesson in polite, civil behavior. You are a shining beacon. I'm sorry that the papers you posted contained vague speculation and hand waving,

How would you know, since you didn't even bother reading them? Compensating for woeful, willful ignorance by being a sanctimonious jackass is a time honored Creationist tradition. You make Ken Ham and Kent Hovind proud!

If by "discuss the data" you mean tell you that it says what you wish it did, I'm afraid I can't do that, because it doesn't, regardless of how many names you call me. Stating genetic differences between bats of varying wing length or mammals with and without limbs does not demonstrate that a series of selected mutations led to those differences. It certainly does not define a pathway by which such steps could have occurred. In short, it does not elevate the theory above its usual level of speculation and hand waving.It's unfortunate that rather than process what I'm saying you can only take offense that I don't share your joy over the fruits of your Google or TalkOrigins research. You seem to think that civility equals agreeing with you.

If by "discuss the data" you mean tell you that it says what you wish it did, I'm afraid I can't do that, because it doesn't, regardless of how many names you call me. Stating genetic differences between bats of varying wing length or mammals with and without limbs does not demonstrate that a series of selected mutations led to those differences. It certainly does not define a pathway by which such steps could have occurred.

Wow, look at those rocket powered goalposts fly!

First you said there were no mechanisms.

We showed you mechanisms.

Then you said we couldn't identify specific mutations.

We identified specific mutations.

Now you demand to see complete series of specific mutations. What's next, a demand to see the individual atoms with numbered tags attached?

That's exactly why you were asked up front what your criteria were, and why you refused to define them.

It's unfortunate that rather than process what I'm saying you can only take offense that I don't share your joy over the fruits of your Google or TalkOrigins research.

I process what you're saying just fine. It's the usual Creationist hand-waving away of all the data presented. It even has a name, IDID, or "I Demand Infinite Detail!" Not very impressive or intellectually honest, but hey - it's standard issue Creationist denial.

You seem to think that civility equals agreeing with you.

No, I think civility is engaging in honest discussion of all the data without resorting to cheap empty rhetoric. But that's just me. Sadly, cheap empty rhetoric is all the IDCers around here have to offer.

Zachriel:"Sure it's possible. Birds have fewer fingers, and the panda has a pseudo-thumb. It's a matter of need and a matter of what's on hand (heh)."

But Ritchie give the number of fingers as an example of non adaptative necessity and then evidence of common descent against convergent evolution. If five fingers could be changed to six or four, and it is not, then is the best fitted, then could be convergent evolution not common descent.

Abstract: Bile salts are the major end-metabolites of cholesterol and are also important in lipid and protein digestion, as well as shaping of the gut microflora. Previous studies had demonstrated variation of bile salt structures across vertebrate species. We greatly extend prior surveys of bile salt variation in fish and amphibians, particularly in analysis of the biliary bile salts of Agnatha and Chondrichthyes. While there is significant structural variation of bile salts across all fish orders, bile salt profiles are generally stable within orders of fish and do not correlate with differences in diet. This large data set allowed us to infer evolutionary changes in the bile salt synthetic pathway. The hypothesized ancestral bile salt synthetic pathway, likely exemplified in extant hagfish, is simpler and much shorter than the pathway of most teleost fish and terrestrial vertebrates. Thus, the bile salt synthetic pathway has become longer and more complex throughout vertebrate evolution. Analysis of the evolution of bile salt synthetic pathways provides a rich model system for the molecular evolution of a complex biochemical pathway in vertebrates.

How can you claim that you're showing me a mechanism if you can't explain how it works?

Do you not see the point? If you are unable to explain how these evolutionary mechanisms effect evolutionary change then how can you state with any certainty that they are in fact evolutionary mechanisms?

Anyone can Google and come up with the same list that you have. But ask how they produce a change, such as a chameleon's tongue or a venus flytrap's triggers, and the explanation breaks down. There is no theory. There is no explanation. All you get is, "Here's these mechanisms, one or two or three of them must have done it somehow."

The theory claims to generally explain everything, but it specifically predicts nothing. That is because the cart is before the horse. The premise is accepted, and it's taken on faith that the specifics will come later. That is not science, it's a belief system.

How can you claim that you're showing me a mechanism if you can't explain how it works?

Any freshman level biology book, or most of the links you were already provided, or a quick Google search will explain how it works.

All the above mechanisms produce random (with respect to evolutionary fitness) genetic changes in every generation. Those genoype differences produce phenotype differences in the animals in a population. Because of the phenotype differences some animals have a statistically greater chance of surviving and reproducing (greater evolutionary fitness) than others. When reproducing the animals pass on the heritable traits in their genome to the next generation. The net result is that the overall genetic makeup of the population shifts towards producing the more robust morphology. The process is often abbreviated RM+NS, also known as evolution.

The theory claims to generally explain everything, but it specifically predicts nothing.

Very not true. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) for example uses evolutionary models to predict the evolutionary pathways of disease vectors so it can best allocate resources to fight expected problems. This is critically important in preventing / halting pandemics like HIV/AIDS.

"But Ritchie give the number of fingers as an example of non adaptative necessity and then evidence of common descent against convergent evolution. If five fingers could be changed to six or four, and it is not, then is the best fitted, then could be convergent evolution not common descent."

The Panda's 'sixth finger' or 'second thumb' is not really a true finger. And in species where fewer than five 'fingers' are utilised (which includes, for example, the horse, whose entire hoof is essentially a single massive finger), the redundant 'fingers' are still percievable, even if they are reduced and fused to the other hand bones.

Let's take the horse as an example. It only really uses one 'finger' - the hoof. The other fingers are reduced and fused to the other hand bones. Why? Why doesn't it just have one finger bone and no reduced, fused ones? This is simply a remnant from their fully five-fingered ancestors and a sign of their common ancestry.

Like wise if a panda has a use for a sixth digit, why doesn't it have a proper sixth finger?

Do you not see the point? If you are unable to explain how these evolutionary mechanisms effect evolutionary change then how can you state with any certainty that they are in fact evolutionary mechanisms?

You have been supplied with papers that detail what the genotypic differences between species are and how these differences lead to different phenotypes.

Point mutations could do these differences. Point mutations happen. You have millions of them (when referenced against your parents). Some 20,000 of these will change the amino-acid sequence in expressed protein-coding genes. And that's in one generation.

The theory claims to generally explain everything, but it specifically predicts nothing.

Sure it does. You just don't know how to make predictions. Here's an example: given that humans, gorillas and orangutans all have the GULOP pseudogene, evolution predicts that chimps will also have it.

" Except no one here said that moron. No one in science says ToE is right by default."

Ya right.I see you missed it again. Knew you would. Got any more blatant lies to hand out? Of course you do. Your little brain is crammed full of nothing but the vast multitude of lies you've swallowed.

"We say ToE is the explanation best supported by the evidence."

When are you going to stop lying to yourself thorto?Lets see about this false statement - um that explains the "evolution is a fact", "evolution is a proved as gravity", "evolution is the greatest show on earth" etc ad infinitum, statements found ubiquitous in your own Darwinian literature.

Get literate or get lost.You can't even lie efficiently.

" You clowns keep telling us ToE is wrong but can't provide any other explanations. So you lose."

Wrong. We keep telling you that the only reasonable explanation - and this is indeed supported by the facts of the laws of information, not just-so stories and trivial change - is that a super intellect only could have made all the basic informational units of life.

T: " Except no one here said that moron. No one in science says ToE is right by default."

Ya right. I see you missed it again. Knew you would.

We all missed it yappy little puppy. Why don't you provide a link to where someone says says ToE is right by default. You won't of course, because you can't. Gary caught lying again, pity.

Wrong. We keep telling you that the only reasonable explanation - and this is indeed supported by the facts of the laws of information, not just-so stories and trivial change - is that a super intellect only could have made all the basic informational units of life.

What super intellect would that be yappy puppy? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?

You're long on yapping but woefully short on details there little puppy.

Wrong. We keep telling you that the only reasonable explanation - and this is indeed supported by the facts of the laws of information, not just-so stories and trivial change - is that a super intellect only could have made all the basic informational units of life.

What laws of information are those, Gary? What is a "super intellect"?

What laws of information are those, Gary? What is a "super intellect"?

1) are you saying there are no laws of information troy? or are you saying you don't know them?2) a super intellect - you should have figured this out on your own - an intellect capable of planning and executing the the information molecule DNA with its encoded instructions

What laws of information are those, Gary? What is a "super intellect"?

1) are you saying there are no laws of information troy? or are you saying you don't know them? 2) a super intellect - you should have figured this out on your own - an intellect capable of planning and executing the the information molecule DNA with its encoded instructions

your questions are insidious and you know it

You two weaseling non-answers noted.

All you can do is C&P ID crappola you don't understand. That becomes obvious every time you're asked to explain, and can't.

All abstract coded information processing and manufacturing machinery, which isn't simply a replication of prexisting machinery of the same type, was produced by intelligent agency.

We have no evidence, no observed instances whatsoever of any non intelligent source producing encoded algorithms - zero.

On the other article I C/Pasted some extracts of Abel & Trevors PEER-REVIEWED papers on the nature of biological information.

Obviously thorny did not understand a word of what Abel & Trevor said.

Worse, given that he does not understand information itself, nor the meaning of the words "coded, encoded, algorithmic" etc. and even far worse, that his only response to Abel & Trevors work was to belittle their OOL office ...

All persons interested in this discussion, or any other scientific debate, hypothesis, theory etc. - and most especially the Darwinian fundamentalists among you - should read this article by Freeman Dyson:

Code as used by geneticists discussing DNA merely means 'any process when the outputs are mapped to the inputs'. This meaning is applicable to naturally occurring chemical reactions, even extremely complicated ones that produce an amino acid from a DNA strand.

Code can also mean 'the use of arbitrary abstract symbols to pass information' (i.e. Braille, Morse code) , but that is not applicable to DNA because DNA does not use any abstract symbols anywhere in the process. You can't build a DNA segment out of Tinkertoys and have it produce a Tinkertoy enzyme.

IDiots rely on arguments based on an equivocation between the two definitions. They are fond of confusing the abstract symbols (A, C, G, T, U) created by science to record the chemical reactions with the molecules of the chemical reactions themselves. Confusing the map with the territory as it were.

Computer code is often used an an analogy for the complicated reactions undergone by DNA, but analogies are not reality. IDiots still can't tell the difference.

Maybe the yappy little puppy should look up the definition of 'abstract'.

On the other article I C/Pasted some extracts of Abel & Trevors PEER-REVIEWED papers on the nature of biological information.

Er...no. Their article appeared in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, a vanity online journal that will publish anything if you pay them. It has an impact factor of 1.6, which puts it on par with Ladies Knitting Journal as far as scientific relevance.

Well thorno, as predicted you've just shot your stupid head off because you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about.

Besides not answering half the questions I posed, the ones you do attempt to answer you have the WRONG answers!!

How many more times do Darwinian ignoramuses need to be corrected on this utterly false notion that the language of DNA, the DNA CODE, is not an analogy to abstract code but it IS abstract code just as much as any human language or computer code is.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics.

Yockey rigorously demonstrated that DNA code processing is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering.

Sorry Darwinistas but this is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

"The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present."- Hubert Yockey, “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981)

Yockey stated, “It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”

Why do think linguist software, linguistic algorithms are used in searching DNA strings?

Darwinism utterly fails at the information level alone - unless of course you are going to claim guided, planned on purpose evolution such as theistic or deistic evolution.

Darwinism has no valid explanation for the informational structure of life. None, zilch, nada.

As Berlinski notes: "It is an algorithm that lies at the humming heart of life, ferrying information from one set of symbols (the nucleic acids) to another (the proteins). An algorithm? How else to describe the intricacy of transcription, translation, and replication than by an appeal to an algorithm? For that matter, what else to call the quantity stored in the macromolecules than information?...Using very simple counting arguments, Hubert Yockey has concluded that an ancient protein such as "cytochrome c" could be expected to arise by chance only once in 10<44> trials. The image of an indefatigable but hopelessly muddled universe trying throughout all eternity to create a single biological molecule is very sobering. It is this image that, no doubt, accounted for Francis Crick's suggestion that life did not originate on earth at all, but was sent here from outer space, a wonderful example of an intellectual operation known generally as fog displacement."- David Berlinski - The End of Materialist Science

Thorton:"IDiots rely on arguments based on an equivocation between the two definitions. They are fond of confusing the abstract symbols (A, C, G, T, U) created by science to record the chemical reactions with the molecules of the chemical reactions themselves. Confusing the map with the territory as it were."

Here we go again. We already discuss this a few posts ago. Genetic code is code, is that biologist do not sequence proteins anymore, they read the DNA/RNA and get the sequence of the protein.You are suggesting that the linkage between the aminoacids and the codon is a chemical linkage, like an enzyme an his substrate. But unfortunatly for darwinist, it is not the case. There is no chemical reason for the codification of Leu as CUU and CCU for Pro.

"Chance is the simplest explanation only so long as you are willing to discount statistical probability as a complicating factor."

This is true, including for the Darwinian evolution hypothesis - (doesn't really make it up to being a valid scientific theory).

Statistical mechanics dictates that probabilities can be calculated for any structural composite mechanism or machine.

For ex., the probabilities of just getting a 40 protein part biological machine together, by chance + the laws of chemistry, is so astronomically low that it is ludicrous to believe that this is what really happened hundreds of thousands of times over.

Moreover, structural components of ANY structure must meet the stringent demands of physics or they will break, distort or shear due to high mechanical stresses in their own movements.

Then combinatorial dependencies (another unknown for Darwinians) come into the game: One part must fit to the other connected part. Parts must be of the correct size, strength, form, elasticity, pliability, hardness, softness etc etc. - the end result being a combinatorial mass of inter-dependent pieces.

Consider, for example, the more than 300 know nano bio machines running (often concurrently and interactively) in the yeast genome. It becomes utterly insurmountable for any stochastic process to have accomplished the creation and assembly of such and that given ANY amount of time!

Darwinism is failed hypothesis.

How do we know this?

Because statistical mechanics, probability theory, the laws of physics and chemistry, the laws of information and the laws of entropy say so.

IDist(s) have and will continue to put all of this together, publish it hope more than less thinkers, at least, will understand.

And then of course, they will be punished by the scientific community of irate Darwinistas, whose minds are still on hold - stuck in their religious dogma, but who happen to run the whole industry and academia.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, D.W., "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)

Besides not answering half the questions I posed, the ones you do attempt to answer you have the WRONG answers!!

You mean like how you answered all those questions about your 'super intellect' claims?

What super intellect would that be yappy puppy? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?

How many more times do Darwinian ignoramuses need to be corrected on this utterly false notion that the language of DNA, the DNA CODE, is not an analogy to abstract code but it IS abstract code just as much as any human language or computer code is.

Fine. You claim DNA is an abstract code, that means it can use any arbitrary materials for the symbols and get the same results. Make us a genome out of Lego, show us the Lego proteins it produces. Maybe the Origin-of-Life folks will let you use their garage, er, lab.

Yockey rigorously demonstrated that DNA code processing is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering

No, Yockey offered his opinion, an opinion not shared by the vast majority of geneticists and biologists.

Bottom line is - you can C&P ridiculous claims from IDiot sites all day long, but you'll never understand or be able to defend it.

For ex., the probabilities of just getting a 40 protein part biological machine together, by chance + the laws of chemistry, is so astronomically low that it is ludicrous to believe that this is what really happened hundreds of thousands of times over.

Then show us your calculations. Be sure to list and justify any assumptions you make.

Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthia Yockey, Hubert Yockey's daughter, posted on their web site?

Cynthia Yockey: "This post is written by Cynthia Yockey. The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science."

Thorton:"Fine. You claim DNA is an abstract code, that means it can use any arbitrary materials for the symbols and get the same results. Make us a genome out of Lego, show us the Lego proteins it produces. Maybe the Origin-of-Life folks will let you use their garage, er, lab."

The need of a special platform in order to get a specific result from a code do not make it non abstract. If you want your computer work, the binary code needs to translated in positive or negative electric charges.

If you want your computer work, the binary code needs to translated in positive or negative electric charges

Wrong. Babbage's 'difference engine' did binary processing but didn't use electricity. You could even run binary code on a big fingered powered abacus if you had to.

The definition of abstract code is that you use arbitrary symbols and arbitrary media to carry your message.

If the only thing in the universe that will allow DNA to transform into proteins are non-arbitrary specific molecules that rely on the laws of chemistry and physics to react, then you don't have an abstract code.

Now why did you lie about what your university taught concerning evolution?

Thorton:"If the only thing in the universe that will allow DNA to transform into proteins are non-arbitrary specific molecules that rely on the laws of chemistry and physics to react, then you don't have an abstract code."

That is wrong, we can read the code, when is writed the can be understood what it means, we also can build a protein sintetizer that can read the code and add the correct aminoacid to the change. To work as a machine protein builder by his own the code need the cell machinery as the binary code need to be in the propper support to make some tasks.We already discuss this before.You are confusing the DNA molecule with the code itself. The code is the relation between the codons and the aminoacids. And is not of chemical nature. A pairs con T because of the chemistry of the DNA molecule but there is no relation between Leu and CUU.

Thorton:"If the only thing in the universe that will allow DNA to transform into proteins are non-arbitrary specific molecules that rely on the laws of chemistry and physics to react, then you don't have an abstract code."

That is wrong, we can read the code, when is writed the can be understood what it means, we also can build a protein sintetizer that can read the code and add the correct aminoacid to the change. To work as a machine protein builder by his own the code need the cell machinery as the binary code need to be in the propper support to make some tasks.

You means science understands the chemistry well enough to know how certain reaction will proceed. It's still not an abstract code, no matter how much ID spin you try and put on it.

We already discuss this before.

You mean you made the same unsupported IDiot claims before. Ho hum.

So why did you lie about what your university taught concerning evolution? Were you trying to score points with the other IDCers here?

Thorton said..." Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthia Yockey, Hubert Yockey's daughter, posted on their web site? Sure makes your quote-mining of him to support ID look pretty silly, eh?"

A few points here thorto:

1) I conversed with Miz Yockey about some her statements by e-mail (years ago), pointing out where she was wrong. She refused to listen, being a dogmatic Darwinist herself - what a surprise.

And oh, you're clearly too blind to realize that what his daughter states has nothing whatsoever to do with her fathers research findings.

She may howl at the moon naked every lunar eclipse for all I care. That would change nothing of the facts of bona fide prescriptive information encoded in DNA.

You see, unfortunately for you and the whole of Darwinism, Yockey is nevertheless correct.

As stated, it isn't even debatable. It's a hard fact.

2) You are way off, so far off it ought to be staring you in the face and it is, but your religious dogma impedes your sight.

You're merely trying, by this oh so standard artifice of deceit -which is used ubiquitously by your kind- to squirm out of Yockey's findings and have to admit you're wrong and God forbid! revise your position in light of facts.

His findings demolish your views.

3) The fact that Yockey himself still refuses to follow the evidence where it leads and now claims in the standard atheist Darwinist manner, "no one will ever know where DNA came from or how life originated."

Wow, What science! Religious materialism dogma ruins you all.

Like all dogmatic, blind and obstinate Darwinists he WILL not admit, in spite of his own research proving Darwin wrong, that an intelligence NECESSARILY created the DNA code.

So, you have to resort to imbecilic and vain accusations of quote mining - the Darwhiners favorite escape tactic - in lack of any real argument.

" Hey Gary, what do you think about this from Cynthia Yockey, Hubert Yockey's daughter, posted on their web site? Sure makes your quote-mining of him to support ID look pretty silly, eh?"

A few points here thorto:

1) I conversed with Miz Yockey about some her statements by e-mail (years ago), pointing out where she was wrong. She refused to listen, being a dogmatic Darwinist herself - what a surprise.

LOL! I can imaging how that went

Gary: "You stupid ignorant Darweener! Your father is an IDist only he doesn't know it! Here's a Jack Chick tract that PROVES GAWD I mean ID is a fact!!"

CY: "Go pound sand"

I'll take her word over yours any day, yappy little puppy.

3) The fact that Yockey himself still refuses to follow the evidence where it leads and now claims in the standard atheist Darwinist manner, "no one will ever know where DNA came from or how life originated."

That's hilarious. You're trying to use as evidence for ID the work of a man who directly say it does not support ID. Talk about living in your own little fantasy puppy world.

When will you be answering those questions on your claimed "super intelligence"?

What super intellect would that be? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?

Sorry old boy but CY received nothing but grace and politeness from me. It's her web site.

I reserve the insults for people like you who spend more time insulting the author of this blog and everyone else disagreeing with you, than doing anything useful.

You reap what you sow.

"I'll take her word over yours any day, yappy little puppy."

And which word is that?You don't even know what you're talking about.

You merely dismiss Yockey's research altogether in order to desperately hang on to your religious dogma.

"You're trying to use as evidence for ID the work of a man who directly say it does not support ID."

You can't read can you.What I really said was that his work proves YOU WRONG on the whole information question.

Yockey himself says you are wrong.Whether he remains a stringent Darwinist or not is entirely irrelevant to the point.

For petes sake thorny how did you ever get a diploma with such terrible reading analysis skills?!

"When will you be answering those questions on your claimed "super intelligence"?"

I did. As usual you missed it.

"What super intellect would that be? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?"

Oh brother. He we go again with the inane Darwinian "who designed the designer" nonsense.

Are there no Darwinists with a proper education here or what? None of you ever studied logic or critical thinking? None of you can analyze a simple proposition without shooting yourselves in the foot?None know of anything at all of information?

Get real before you lose it entirely.

"You seem to be all mouth and no action here little puppy"

This little puppy is so far beyond your 100 or less IQ it isn't funny.

I proved, by using research done by a Darwinian fundamentalist, that your whole view of biological information is pure crap.

When will you admit your error and get back to the point? All your bluster and frustrated howlings are only making you look dumber than you are.

You are incapable of admitting an error. Error, especially errors of the magnitude of your error on the nature of biological information, implies failure of the dogma to correspond to reality.

And that scares the living shit out of you.

But reality is something Dawinian fundamentalist fanatics like you know little of.

For it is in fact you with your magical theory of frogs to princes by the kiss of copy errors and mere filtering, that are living in a fairy tale wonderland worthy of Disney.

FAILBiological information, as one of your own states, is mathematically identical to that of human language, computer programs and sign symbols.

T: "When will you be answering those questions on your claimed "super intelligence"?"

I did. As usual you missed it.

I say you are lying. prove me wrong by posting a link to the answers. Here are the questions again:

T: "What super intellect would that be? Where did the super intellect come from? When was this design and manufacture done, and where, and how?"

Gary: Oh brother. He we go again with the inane Darwinian "who designed the designer" nonsense.

If you bothered to answer even once we wouldn't have to keep asking. But you never answer, only flap those gums and run away.

I proved, by using research done by a Darwinian fundamentalist, that your whole view of biological information is pure crap.

Interesting, since you've yet to give a rigorous definition of 'biological information' or a way to quantify it despite being asked dozens of times.

You forgot to provide your probability calculations for this too

For ex., the probabilities of just getting a 40 protein part biological machine together, by chance + the laws of chemistry, is so astronomically low that it is ludicrous to believe that this is what really happened hundreds of thousands of times over.

How about those calculations Gary? Should be easy for you since you claim you already finished and drew conclusions from them. Why can't you just C&P them here? You have no problem C&Ping all sorts of other IDiot crap.

No longer interested in ANYTHING at all that stumbles out of your illogical, unreasonable, denial of reality and badly educated little mind.

Oops, sorry I forgot. In Darwinism all is determined and you, poor fellow, are merely "dancing to your DNA" since there is no free will. LOL

Oh, btw, I'll be using examples from these attempted discussions with you on my blog to demonstrate to all readers just how imbecilic religious Darwinian Dogmatists really are in the face of facts. Even those coming from their own people.

"No longer interested in being EMBARRASSED by people calling my bluff on my idiotic claims. Of course I can't provide all those probability calculations I crowed about - are you kidding? I couldn't answer a scientific question if my life depended on it. All I do is bluster and bloviate and regurgitate this IDiot crap I don't understand just to make myself feel better. It's what we Creationist do."

So like all cowardly Creationists, when called on his blustering BS Gary can't produce. And like all cowardly creationists, Gary tosses a stink bomb to cover his unceremonious and panicked flight towards the door.

Don't let the "my probability calculation that I can't show disprove evolution" door hit you in the cheeks on the way out.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/